She's his WIFE?! HELLO?! WOW. No conflict of interest flag here???
This study is by Maria Wawer, wife of Ronald Gray, who did the Uganda RCT on circ and HIV. Gray is also listed as a contributor to the piece. Wawer, you will recall, authored the "study" (also published by The Lancet) where 922 intact HIV+ males were enrolled, one-half were then circumcised, and all were let loose on their HIV- partners. The purpose was to see if circumcision protected women from HIV transmission. Funny enough the reverse was found to be true, the circumcised men transmitted HIV more effectively than the intact men. [But the press just said, "
Circumcision does not protect women from HIV"; no article pointed out the truth, "Circumcision increases HIV among women." But what about the ethics of the study? Clearly, as someone else has said, this study was "worse than Tuskegee." It treated black African men and women as lab rats. Would such a study ever have been conducted on white Americans or Europeans? Why did The Lancet publish that study? Why did it publish this one on HPV? Good questions that need to be answered.
And this HPV study is hardly definitive. An article by Vardas, et al. entitled "External Genital Human Papillomavirus Prevalence and Associated Factors Among Heterosexual Men on 5 Continents" published this month in the Journal of Infectious Diseases [JID 2011:203 (1 January)] found: "Neither condom usage nor circumcision was associated with HPV DNA prevalence." But, of course, the circumcised American press failed entirely to pick up on this one, probably because it fails to confirm the pro-circumcision paradigm so important to the circumcised male.
The Vardas study, of course, is confirmed by our experience in the real world here in the U.S. We have the highest rate of circumcision in the industrialized world outside of Israel; and our STD rates, including HPV, are equal to or greater than those found in European countries where very few to virtually none are circumcised
In short, HPV prevention is no reason to circumcise. Nor is the "prevention" of any other STD.
Could everyone give me input on this article. I am due soon (possibly with a boy) and we have decided definitely either way.....
"Male circumcision has now been shown to decrease HIV, herpes simplex virus-2, and HPV infections and genital ulcer disease in men, and also HPV infection, trichomoniasis, and bacterial vaginosis and genital ulcer disease in their female partners," Wawer's team wrote.
Condoms and monogamy work better.
Seriously? Cutting part of a penis off because of this 'research'? I just can't comprehend it. In some parts of the world they cut off the clitoris. I am sure that also prevents women from spreading disease (since they have little to no sex drive).
If I were a boy, and my mom had circ'd me because it can supposedly reduce my chances of getting an STD, it would have been pointless. I am hyper vigilante about wearing a condom correctly AND the only people I have ever engaged in any sexual act with have all been virgins (and beyond that, had never experienced any sexual act one generally doesn't think takes the v card but can still spread STD's)
I've never been exposed to an STD because my partners have never been exposed to STD's. It would have been pointless because not only was I not the type to have sex willy nilly (not saying those who do are 'bad,' I just don't myself) but I made sure the protection was at max regardless of my partners past partners, or lack there of.
Even if circumcision reduces the risk of STD's, I feel it should still be left to the boy to determine if he wants that particular protection via a surgery AFTER learning that he will STILL need a condom because it doesn't ELIMINATE STDs. He will still be at risk to himself and his partners circumcision or not if he isn't wearing a condom every.single.time.
Have we heard back from the OP? OP, how's it going? Did you get your questions answered?
Partner to DH and Former WOHM, now SAHM to Sensory & ADHD DD (9), with DD (4) and DS (2)
Whatever you believe evolution or creation....the foreskin is there for a good reason. Teach your son to use a condom instead of circ'ing him. What if that study from a PP turns out to be unreliable in the future like other circ studies? The danger of HPV has been grossly blown out of proportion. I had was found to have HPV 20 yrs ago & have had perfect PAPs since then. Even if I hadn't, I would circ my some b/c of something that might happen.
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."- Albert Einstein
A lot of men in Africa are going against their traditional practices of circumcision as well. DH showed me a video of an African IDK rap? band and they have a lot of songs against this practice. It is a mixed race band as well, all African but some white men and women and some black. It is mixed with some people who grew up in tribes and others who grew up in a modern society (south Africa), but they are all against it. They do the songs in English and their native language (I forget what it was...) so even a country who is supposedly "benefiting" from circumcision has the same issues as America. Some people know it's wrong and don't want parts of their body cut off, while others just keep forcing it.
Young born-again mama and loving wife to DH and SAHP to two crazy girls we and believe !
This report on Uganda and HPV is from the same Wawer/Gray team that in 2009 reported that circumcising a Ugandan man made him 50% MORE likely to infect his partner with deadly HIV.
The Gardasil vaccine made headlines last year when there were some adverse outcomes suspected. Even if EVERY person who died within a year of the vaccine dose died DUE TO the vaccine, infant circumcision is still 27 times deadlier per patient.
HIS body, HIS decision.